ARBITRATION 


AS  APPLIED  TO  RAILWAY  CORPORATIONS 
AND  THEIR  EMPLOYEES 


BY  EDWARD  A.  MOSELEY 

Secretary  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission 


REPRINTED  FROM  “TRANSPORTATION”  FOR  SEPTEMBER,  1 893 


Washington,  D.  C. 

Press  of  W.  F.  Roberts,  1421  G  Street  N.  W. 

1893 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/arbitrationasapp00mose_0 


ARBITRATION 

As  Applied  to  Railroad  Corporations 
and  their  Employees. 

By  Edward  A.  Moserey.* 

The  tendency  of  industrial  progress  is  to  concen¬ 
trate  vast  interests  under  common  control,  and  the 
same  conditions  which  have  induced  or  compelled 
manufacturers  and  producers  to  sacrifice  individual 
control  and  embrace  the  opportunity  of  combination 
have  impelled  labor  to  associate  and  organize  for  the 
protection  and  advancement  of  its  interests.  One 
result  of  this  change  from  individual  and  independ¬ 
ent  conduct  to  unity  of  action  and  common  direction 
has  been  to  broaden  the  effect  of  disputes  between 
the  two  parties  to  such  an  extent  that  provision  for 
their  prompt  and  effectual  settlement  has  become  a 
public  necessity  and  a  public  duty.  What  remedies 
will  best  accomplish  this  end  is  a  question  that  has 
been  agitating  the  ablest  minds  of  Europe  and  Amer¬ 
ica  for  so  long  that  many  have  come  to  look  upon 
its  solution  as  hopeless.  It  is  possible  that  we  shall 
be  compelled  to  abandon  all  search  for  a  plan  that 
will  speedily  heal  ruptures  between  wage-payers  and 
wage-earners  generally,  and,  taking  the  classes  of 
X  industrial  pursuits  separately,  e.  g.,  manufacture, 
mining,  agriculture,  etc.,  endeavor  to  provide  such 
a  method  of  settlement  for  labor  disputes  arising  in 
O  each  as  may  seem  best  suited,  after  careful  and  pains- 
taking  investigation,  to  the  conditions  of  the  par¬ 
ticular  class  of  industry  and  the  needs  and  rights  of 
the  parties.  But  whether  in  providing  proper  rem¬ 
edies  we  shall  finally  be  forced  into  taking  such 
specific  and  discriminating  action  or  not,  it  is  clear 


*  Secretary  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 


? 35741 


4 


and  conceded  that  as  to  one  branch  of  industry, 
namely,  railway  transportation,  the  interest  of  the 
public  in  all  that  pertains  to  railway  management 
makes  it  a  third  party  to  controversies  between  rail¬ 
way  companies  and  their  employees,  and  eliminates 
from  our  consideration  the  difficult  preliminary  ques¬ 
tion  whether  any  interference  with  the  contractual 
rights  of  employer  and  employee  is  permissible  at  all. 
We  have,  therefore,  full  warrant  for  dealing  directly 
and  at  once  with  labor  questions  arising  on  railways, 
and  have  only  to  determine  upon  and  provide  the 
most  feasible  and  effectual  plan  of  settlement. 

One  proposed  method  is  arbitration.  Another  is 
to  require  the  parties  to  subscribe  to  specific  condi¬ 
tions  in  written  contracts  and  leave  questions  of  per¬ 
formance  arising  therefrom  to  the  courts. 

The  defect  in  the  latter  suggestion  is  that  it  covers 
neither  the  real  needs  of  labor  nor  the  true  interests 
of  capital .  Great  strikes  do  not  originate  in  breaches 
of  contract.  The  prime  cause  of  ‘ 1  the  strike  ”  is  the 
refusal  of  one  side  to  comply  with  demands  made 
by  the  other.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  written 
contracts,  however  specific,  however  stringent,  would 
do  little  toward  abolishing  strikes  and  lock-outs,  for 
contracts  must  terminate,  and  those  relating  to  labor 
cannot  for  obvious  reasons  be  made  to  extend  over 
long  periods.  Such  agreements  may  be  useful  as  far 
as  they  go,  but  we  must  seek  relief  on  broader  lines 
than  compulsory  contracts  and  judicial  decrees  re¬ 
quiring  specific  performance.  We  must  turn  for 
light  to  the  conditions  which  have  changed  the  ap¬ 
propriate  designation  of  a  contest  between  capital 
and  labor  from  that  of  an  independent  skirmish  to  a 
general  engagement.  The  day  of  small  things  in 
most  branches  of  the  industrial  world  is  past.  Agri¬ 
culture,  and  that  only  because  of  its  being  insepar¬ 
ably  connected  with  the  rural  home,  stands  alone  as 
the  one  class  of  industry  wherein  the  small  holding 
is  still  the  rule,  notwithstanding  the  increasing  power 


5 


and  force  of  great  farming  enterprises,  operates  to 
decrease  net  returns  and  consequently  the  value  of 
the  ‘  ‘  homestead  farm  ’  ’  year  after  year. 

It  matters  little  to  labor  how  capital  is  owned ; 
its  vital  interest  lies  in  how  it  is  applied.  Compar¬ 
ing  the  present  with  fifty  years  ago  and  considering 
the  increase  in  the  amount  of  capital  in  connection 
with  the  number  of  those  who  engage  in  labor,  it  is 
probably  safe  to  assume  that  wealth  invested  in  pro¬ 
ductive  enterprises  is  as  much  divided  now  as  then. 
But  while  investment  by  the  owners  of  capital  in 
such  enterprises  is  direct,  their  control  of  its  appli¬ 
cation  is  mainly  indirect,  because  of  the  almost  uni¬ 
versal  practice  of  massing  industrial  capital  in  the 
hands  of  corporations,  thus  operating  enormously 
to  decrease  the  number  of  employers  in  proportion 
to  the  employed.  Therefore,  while  those  who  buy 
labor  buy  largely,  the  number  of  buyers  being  com¬ 
paratively  few,  they  enjoy  all  those  immense  advan¬ 
tages  which  accrue  to  the  large  dealer  and  which  not 
infrequently  amount  to  the  power  of  dictation. 
The  extent  of  the  consolidation  of  capital  and  the 
constantly  increasing  tendency  to  such  consolida¬ 
tion  is  familiar  history.  Opposed  to  and  made 
necessary  by  this  is  unity  of  action  on  the  part  of 
labor.  Acting  generally  on  the  defensive,  with  each 
advance  of  capital  toward  greater  aggregation, 
labor  has  become  more  compactly  organized,  and 
the  grievance  of  a  trade,  or  of  those  employed  in  a 
a  trade  in  a  particular  region,  or  an  individual 
workman,  has  come  to  be  resented  by  labor  gener¬ 
ally  as  a  body  and  frequently  been  made  the  basis 
not  only  of  a  dispute  and  a  strike  but  a  succession 
of  strikes  involving  more  than  one  kind  of  employ¬ 
ment. 

Combinations  of  capital  and  organizations  of  labor 
are  created  for  exactly  the  same  purpose,  the  pro¬ 
tection  and  promotion  of  individual  interests  by  col¬ 
lective  action,  and  both  are  entitled  to  exactly  the 


6 


same  degree  of  recognition.  They  represent  the  two 
great  interdependent  and  interacting  forces  of  in¬ 
dustry.  Overwhelming  power  in  the  hands  of  the 
first  means  unbearable  oppression  to  the  other,  while 
extreme  advantage  conferred  upon  the  latter  would, 
if  unwisely  used,  inflict  ruin  upon  the  former.  Each 
side  is  governed  by  the  dominant  motive  of  self- 
interest,  and  they  should  be  placed  and  kept  upon 
equal  footing.  To  do  this  full  recognition  of  labor 
organizations  is  essential.  A  corporation  which  has 
brain  and  sinew  for  its  capital  should  be  regarded  as 
similar,  in  a  legal  sense,  to  a  joint  stock  concern 
with  a  paid  up  money  capital.  This  much  I  believe 
is  due  to  labor  in  any  branch  of  industry.  Custom 
has  done  much  in  this  direction  already,  for  scales 
of  wages  are  not  infrequently  fixed  between  employ¬ 
ers  and  organizations  to  which  the  employees  belong. 
The  idea  has  also  been  partially  crystalized  into  law 
by  state  legislatures  and  by  Congress  through  the 
enactment  of  statutes  providing  for  the  incorporation 
of  labor  societies  for  purposes  of  improvement,  ad¬ 
vancement,  and  protection  of  labor  interests  and  in¬ 
dividual  rights,  even  going  so  far  as  to  specify  regu¬ 
lation  of  wages  and  hours.  But  such  construction 
of  these  laws  by  the  courts  as  would  authorize  com¬ 
binations  of  labor  to  do  that  which  the  individual 
workman  may  lawfully  do  singly  is  lacking,  and 
definite  legislation  would  seem  necessary  to  secure 
that  end.  Had  the  fully  equipped  labor  corporation 
been  an  accomplished  fact,  with  the  right  to  treat 
with  the  mill  owners  in  behalf  of  the  men.  the  main 
fight  would  not  have  been  over  recognition  of  the 
labor  organization  and  there  is  little  doubt  that  the 
great  strike  and  subsequent  riot  at  Homestead, 
involving  the  loss  of  so  many  lives,  would  have 
been  averted  by  submission  of  the  matters  in  differ¬ 
ence  to  arbitration  or  by  some  other  peaceful  means 
of  settlement;  with  the  further  result  of  avoiding 
the  substitution  of  thousands  of  immigrating  labor- 


7 


ers  for  those  who,  toiling  there  for  years,  had  practical¬ 
ly  consecrated  themselves  to  the  particular  industry 
and  reared  their  families  with  a  view  to  their  engag¬ 
ing  in  a  steady,  reliable  and  remunerative  employ¬ 
ment,  and  even  inheriting  it.  That  contest  had  ser¬ 
ious  effect  upon  the  relation  of  employers  and  em¬ 
ployees  throughout  the  land  ;  an  effect  which  was 
manifested  by  smaller  strikes,  numerous  disputes, 
threatening  attitudes  and  mutual  distrust.  And  the 
loss  of  business  to  the  Carnegie  mills  caused  by  the 
widespread  power  of  antagonistic  labor  employed  in 
industries  using  iron  products,  and  by  general  pop¬ 
ular  sympathy  with  the  men,  must  have  been 
enormous. 

While  much  discussion  of  the  relations  of  labor 
and  capital  generally  should  not  be  had  in  a  paper 
limited  to  the  consideration  of  a  particular  branch 
of  industry,  I  cannot  refrain  from  making  some  fur¬ 
ther  observation  upon  this  strike  in  the  Carnegie 
mills.  As  before  stated,  a  resort  to  arbitration  would 
have  averted  the  terrible  disasters  which  ensued  at 
Homestead  and  affected  social  order  throughout  the 
country.  The  course  adopted  had  the  usual  result 
of  transferring  some  phases  of  the  contest  to  the 
courts  ;  and  in  this  instance  the  cases  presented  for 
judicial  determination  were  of  a  criminal  char¬ 
acter.  The  original  issue  between  the  manufac¬ 
turers  and  the  men  was  in  no  wise  presented  for 
settlement  by  these  proceedings.  It  could  not  be. 
Whenever  the  aid  of  the  courts  is  invoked  by 
either  employer  or  employee,  the  action  must  rest 
upon  some  grievance  which  the  law  takes  cognizance 
of,  and  there  is  no  law  prohibiting  employers  from 
limiting  the  compensation  of  their  workmen  or  dis¬ 
charging  them  from  service,  or  which  compels  them 
to  recognize  labor  organizations. 

The  assertion  that  “the  powers  of  a  court  of 
equity  are  as  vast  and  its  processes  and  procedures 
as  elastic  as  all  the  changing  emergencies  of  in- 


8 


creasingly  complex  business  relations  and  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  rights  can  demand,’  ’  while  it  may  be  con¬ 
ceded  to  be  correct  in  a  general  sense,  cannot  be  re¬ 
lied  upon  as  pointing  out  a  way  of  settling  disputes 
which  relate  to  employment,  except  where  some 
breach  of  legal  duty  occurs.  This  is  forcibly  illus¬ 
trated  by  the  recent  trouble  between  the  engineers 
and  firemen  and  officers  of  the  Toledo  &  Ann  Arbor 
road.  The  fact  that  a  strike  of  engineers  and  fire¬ 
men  occurred  on  that  road  was  merely  an  incident 
in  the  court  proceedings  which  afterwards  took 
place.  The  fact  that  notification  by  the  Chief  of  the 
Brotherhood  of  Engineers  to  members  that  a  ‘  ‘  strike 
was  on”  was  alleged  to  have  resulted  in  a  refusal 
by  engineers  employed  on  other  roads  to  move 
Toledo  &  Ann  Arbor  cars,  and  this  was  seized  upon 
by  the  road  as  ground  for  legal  proceedings.  It 
was  the  effect  of  the  action  by  the  engineers  and 
firemen  and  their  chiefs  which  the  courts  took  into 
account  in  allowing  the  temporary  injunctions  and 
deciding  the  proceedings  for  contempt.  The  funda¬ 
mental  cause  of  the  trouble — the  dispute  between 
the  Ann  Arbor  road  and  its  men — was  not  and  could 
not  have  been  considered  by  the  courts  with  a  view 
to  settlement.  The  effect  of  the  decisions  subse¬ 
quently  given  was  to  create  the  mistaken  belief  in 
the  popular  mind  that  they  settled  the  Ann  Arbor 
strike  in  favor  of  the  roads,  though  by  many  of  those 
acquainted  with  the  facts  it  is  confidently  asserted 
that  the  original  wrong  was  entirely  on  the  part  of 
the  management  of  the  railroad  company.  Those 
decisions  did  nothing  more  than  fine  a  man  for  con¬ 
tempt  of  court  and  treat  of  the  Brotherhood’s  Rule 
XII.  They  did  not  reach  the  core  of  the  difficulty. 

An  important  point  considered  in  those  decisions 
is  that  the  movement  of  interstate  commerce  over 
connecting  lines  was  interfered  with,  and  I  do  not 
cite  the  decision  now  with  any  purpose  to  dissent 
from  the  view  of  the  duty  of  carriers  in  this  respect 


9 


which  was  stated  by  the  learned  judges.  On  the 
contrary,  I  commend  it.  But  is  it  not  unfortunate 
that  the  emphatic  assertion  of  this  doctrine  should 
be  made  in  a  case  where  the  obstruction  to  traffic 
was  alleged  to  result  from  an  employee’s  act,  while 
prior  decisions  of  other  courts  in  treating  the  same 
question  have  almost  entirely  freed  carriers  from  any 
duty  whatever  in  the  matter  of  facilities  for  receiv¬ 
ing,  forwarding,  and  delivering  traffic  to  and  from 
connecting  lines?  In  other  words,  a  section  of  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Act,  the  leading  and  plain  pur¬ 
pose  of  which  was  to  restrain  the  railroads  from  dis¬ 
criminating  between  connecting  carriers  in  the  hand¬ 
ling  and  forwarding  of  freight,  has  been  appealed  to 
for  the  purpose  of  suppressing  a  strike  on  the  part 
of  the  employees,  a  purpose  which  was  wholly  foreign 
to  the  end  had  in  view  by  the  legislators  who  enacted 
the  law.  Another  leading  object  of  the  act  and  those 
who  secured  its  passage,  to  wit,  securing  just  and 
reasonable  rates,  has  apparently  been  defeated  in 
large  measure  by  strained  judicial  interpretations, 
that  under  the  law  several  combined  roads  are  for 
certain  purposes  one  line  and  for  certain  other  pur¬ 
poses  distinct  and  separate  lines,  at  the  election  of  the 
roads  themselves.  These  several  decisions  enable 
carriers  to  evade  the  plain  provisions  of  the  law  in¬ 
tended  for  the  protection  of  the  public  and  at  the  same 
time  invoke  protection  against  their  employees — a 
result  clearly  antagonistic  to  the  spirit  of  the  law 
and  never  contemplated  by  its  framers. 

It  may  be  said  in  this  connection  that  great  feel¬ 
ing  was  aroused  among  the  people  over  a  report 
that  a  district  judge  had  received  free  transporta¬ 
tion  by  a  carrier  interested  in  order  that  he  might 
issue  the  injunction  prayed  for  by  the  carrier,  and 
that  this  was  accomplished  at  the  private  office  of 
the  complaining  road  without  the  knowledge  of  the 
men  ;  and  the  query  arises,  if  a  judge,  who  for  the 
purpose  of  holding  court,  travels  over  his  circuit  in 


IO 


palace  coaches  on  free  passes  furnished  by  roads 
that  are  parties  to  suits  before  him,  is  wholly  un¬ 
biased  (and  freedom  from  bias  was  doubtless  the  case 
in  this  instance)  and  competent  to  preside  impar¬ 
tially  over  the  trial  of  such  suits,  whether  a  juror 
should  be  held  unfit  to  perform  his  duty  in  an  im¬ 
partial  manner  and  the  jury  of  which  he  is  a  mem¬ 
ber  be  discharged  after  a  trial  of  long  duration  is 
almost  concluded,  simply  because  such  juror  had 
committed  the  impropriety  of  dining  with  a  party 
to  the  case  being  tried  ?  In  other  words,  whether  or 
not  the  fact  that  a  juror  has  during  the  progress  of 
a  suit  dined  with  one  of  the  parties  should  be  held 
conclusively  to  have  biased  his  mind  in  favor  of  such 
party  as  to  a  question  of  fact ,  when  riding  in  palace 
coaches  as  the  guest  and  at  the  expense  of  a  rail¬ 
road  party  to  a  suit,  while  on  the  way  to  the  trial, 
does  not  (as  all  fair-minded  men  will  admit)  in  the 
least  influence  the  mind  of  a  learned  judge  in  favor 
of  such  road  as  to  a  question  of  law  involved  in  the 
litigation  ? 

But  these  decisions,  and  that  of  Judge  Speer,  ren¬ 
dered  about  the  same  time,  did,  if  their  application 
is  not  carefully  limited,  strike  a  blow  at  what  had 
been  considered  one  of  labor’s  inalienable  privileges, 
the  right  of  a  number  of  employees  to  leave  their  em¬ 
ploy  in  a  body  at  a  particular  time.  It  was  held  that 
Rule  XII  of  the  Brotherhood  is  illegal  because  its 
operation  would  be  certain  to  interfere  with  and  retard 
the  movement  of  interstate  traffic,  and  that  action  un¬ 
der  the  rule  would  and  does  amount  to  a  combina¬ 
tion  or  conspiracy  in  restraint  of  trade.  Sudden 
enforcement  of  the  rule  by  the  Brotherhood  might 
prevent  transportation  for  the  time  being,  and  any 
well-founded  construction  of  the  law  which  insures 
the  continuous  carriage  of  traffic  by  railway  carriers 
is  to  be  upheld.  The  public  is  clearly  entitled  to 
demand  that  the  flow  of  commerce  shall  be  free 
from  all  restrictions,  and  in  the  matter  of  transporta- 


I 


tion  common  carriers  are  rightly  held  to  a  strict 
responsibility.  It  is  equally  clear  that  persons  em  - 
ployed  by  the  carrier  in  the  business  of  transporta¬ 
tion  assume  such  limited  responsibility  as  comes 
within  the  terms  of  their  contract,  and  that 
they  should  not  be  permitted,  either  singly  or 
collectively,  to  leave  their  employ  without  such 
warning  to  the  carrier  as  will  amount  to  reason¬ 
able  notice  of  their  intention  so  to  do,  thus 
affording  the  carrier  fair  opportunity  to  fill  such 
impending  vacancies  in  its  working  force.  But 
notice  given  to  a  carrier  by  its  engineers  that  on 
and  after  a  certain  date  they  will  refuse  to  handle 
through  traffic  coming  from  or  destined  to  a  con¬ 
necting  road  is  clear  and  distinct  advice  to  that  car¬ 
rier  that  if  it  will  not  consent  to  join  in  the  refusal 
so  to  handle  such  traffic,  except  as  local  freight  on 
its  line,  the  contract  of  employment  will  terminate 
on  the  date  mentioned  ;  and  if  the  time  allowed  is 
reasonable,  it  would  hardly  seem  equitable  to  hold 
that  Rule  XII  so  applied  is  illegal.  No  one  will 
assert  that  the  railway  employee’s  individual  rights 
are  impaired  by  the  nature  of  his  employment.  He 
has  only  to  fulfill  his  contract,  always  remembering 
that  the  public  is  a  party  thereto  (entitled,  however, 
to  no  more  than  reasonable  treatment),  and  his  re¬ 
sponsibility  ends.  It  is  no  part  of  his  agreement  with 
the  carrier  or  the  public  that  he  shall  not  leave  his 
work  until  his  place  is  filled.  That  burden  is  on 
the  carrier,  and  it  is  only  entitled  to  reasonable  no¬ 
tice  of  a  prospective  vacancy. 

It  is  said  in  the  case  against  Chief  Arthur  that  the 
strike  on  the  Ann  Arbor  road  was  lawful  because  it 
was  a  combination  ‘  ‘  for  the  lawful  purpose  of  sell¬ 
ing  the  labor  of  those  engaged  in  it  for  the  highest 
price  obtainable  and  on  the  best  terms  ;  ”  but  that 
the  employees  of  the  Take  Shore  and  other  roads 
were  not  dissatisfied  with  the  terms  of  their  employ¬ 
ment,  and  the  act  of  these  employees  in  combining 


12 


to  withhold  their  labor  from  them  for  the  purpose  of 
injuring  the  Ann  Arbor  road  was  unlawful.  And 
it  is  further  stated  that  herein  is  found  the  difference 
between  the  .strike  and  the  boycott.  If  the  premises 
are  correct,  I  agree  with  this  view  ;  but  are  they  ? 
Were  the  employees  of  the  Lake  Shore  road  and  others 
connecting  with  the  Ann  Arbor  line  satisfied  with 
the  terms  of  their  employment  ?  The  engineers  on 
all  these  lines  belonged  to  a  “  brotherhood  ’  ’  legally 
organized  for  the  protection  and  advancement  of  their 
interests,  and  the  members  of  the  organization  had 
of  their  own  free  will  and  inclination  established 
rules  and  by-laws  and  appointed  officers  to  execute 
them.  These  members  had  agreed  in  effect  that,  in 
case  of  a  “  legal  strike  ”  of  engineers  upon  a  road, 
they  would  not  be  satisfied  with  the  terms  of  their 
employment  on  connecting  roads  if  their  duties  con¬ 
sisted  in  hauling  cars  in  which  the  road  on  which 
the  strike  occurred  was  interested;  and  Arthur,  the 
Chief,  was  by  virture  of  his  office  required  to  give 
notice  of  the  strike.  All  this  hardly  seems  to  come 
within  the  term  ‘  ‘  boycott.”  Whether  the  engineers 
on  the  Lake  Shore  and  other  roads  gave  proper  notice 
of  their  dissatisfaction  with  the  changed  conditions  of 
their  employment  is  another  question,  and  one  which 
I  need  not  here  discuss ;  but  that  Rule  XII  properly 
applied  operates  as  a  boycott  I  do  not  admit.  Any 
one  engineer  working  on  the  Lake  Shore  might  law¬ 
fully  have  quit  work  under  his  contract  at  any  time 
after  his  run  was  complete,  and  allege  as  a  reason 
his  dissatisfaction  with  the  terms  of  an  employment 
which  compelled  him  to  haul  the  cars  of  a  road 
whereon  his  biethren  were  engaged  in  a  strike.  If 
he  can  lawfully  do  this,  what  just  grounds  exist  for 
restraining  the  chief  of  his  organization  from  carry¬ 
ing  out  the  will  of  himself  and  fellow  members  by 
notifying  members  of  the  organization  when  cause 
for  dissatisfaction  with  their  employment  has  arisen, 
and  to  act  according  to  rules  which  they  them- 


13 


selves  have  established?  The  legal  maxim  “that 
every  man  shall  so  use  his  own  as  not  to  injure  the 
rights  and  property  of  another,”  cannot  fairly  be  ap¬ 
plied  so  as  to  compel  men  to  remain  an  undue  length 
of  time  in  distasteful  employment,  or  to  prevent  them 
from  using  all  reasonable  means  to  have  that  em¬ 
ployment  made  congenial  or  more  profitable. 

My  purpose  here  is  not  to  criticise  the  decision 
rendered  by  Judge  Taft  upon  the  facts  set  out  in  the 
Ann  Arbor  case,  but  to  draw  therefrom  the  distinc¬ 
tion  between  legal  and  illegal  acts  of  men  in  combi¬ 
nation.  The  decision  of  Judge  Billings  in  March 
last  affords  another  illustration  of  this,  because, 
while  he  was  undoubtedly  right  in  holding  that  the 
strike  should  not  have  included  intimidation  and 
violence  whereby  other  workmen  were  deterred  from 
entering  into  employment,  he  did  not  distinctly  up¬ 
hold  the  right  of  the  men  to  act  in  concert  in  an 
orderly  way  for  the  purpose  of  securing  better  pay. 
Whether  or  not  it  was  proper  to  include  in  such 
concert  of  action  all  the  employed  in  the  City  of 
New  Orleans  need  not  be  discussed  here  ;  perhaps 
it  was  not.  But  the  provocation  to  such  action 
must  be  deemed  severe  if  the  statement  in  the  call 
for  the  strike  was  true,  namely,  that  the  board  of 
trade,  merchants,  boss  draymen  and  weighers 
claimed  to  represent  the  entire  employing  power  of 
the  city,  and  asserted  that  they  would  not  recognize 
unions  or  labor  organizations  in  connection  with 
their  business,  and  would  endeavor  to  prevent  all 
employers  from  either  employing  or  recognizing 
union  men.  If  the  conclusion  of  the  Court  that 
the  acts  of  the  New  Orleans  workmen  constituted 
a  combination  in  restraint  of  trade  in  violation  of 
the  anti-trust  law  is  a  correct  construction  of  that 
law,  it  would  seem  that  the  joint  action  of  employers 
in  that  city  .was  j  ust  as  clearly  a  combination  in  re¬ 
straint  of  labor. 

But  I  do  not  believe,  if  the  question  is  ever  cleanly 


x4 


presented  to  the  courts,  that  the  anti-trust  law  will 
be  held  to  apply  to  labor  organizations.  There  never 
was  any  need  of  so  construing  that  law.  Before  its 
passage  the  revised  statutes  already  contained  com¬ 
prehensive  provisions  against  conspiracy.  The  law 
against  trusts  was  not  directed  against  labor  unions; 
it  was  intended  to  restrain  the  establishment  of  op¬ 
pressive  combinations  by  those  who,  by  reason  of 
ownership,  control  the  commerce  of  the  country,  and 
who  by  combination  might  perpetuate  not  temporary 
but  continuing  hardships  upon  the  people.  This 
law,  in  a  word,  was  not  calculated  to  repress  the 
furtherance  of  individual  rights  even  through  col¬ 
lective  action,  but  was  designed  to  prevent  increased 
prices  and  business  monopoly.  Another  considera¬ 
tion  arising  out  of  a  construction  of  the  anti -trust 
law  by  Judge  Riner  of  the  United  States  District 
Court  of  Kansas  is  worthy  of  note.  The  ruling  was 
that  Congress  did  not  intend  to  include  interstate 
common  carriers  under  the  provisions  of  that  law. 
If  this  is  sound,  and  an  unlawful  restraint  of  trade 
cannot  be  brought  about  by  a  combination  of  carriers, 
it  follows  that  a  combination  of  these  carriers’  em¬ 
ployees  cannot  be  brought  under  the  statute’s  ban. 
This  court  says  the  anti-trust  law  does  not  include 
every  sort  of  combination  ;  Judge  Billings  and 
others  say  it  does.  Which  court  has  made  a  mistake  ? 

When  the  object  had  in  view  is  lawful,  the  re¬ 
straint  of  trade  may  be  an  unavoidable  incident  of 
a  strike  of  railway  employees,  but  it  is  not  the 
object.  In  such  cases  there  is  no  wilful  intent.  It 
is  a  gross  perversion  of  the  law  against  trusts  and 
monopolies  to  attempt  to  apply  it  in  favor  of  rail" 
way  corporations  against  their  employees  engaged 
in  the  attempt  to  maintain  their  mutual  rights.  It 
is  turning  against  the  people  a  weapon  which  was 
designed  for  their  protection. 

The  recent  decision  of  Judge  Mitchell  at  St.  Paul 
supports  the  view  contended  for  in  this  paper. 


i5 


He  decides  that  any  man,  unless  under  contract 
obligation,  or  unless  his  employment  charges  him 
with  some  public  duty,  has  a  right  to  refuse  to  work 
for  or  deal  with  any  man  or  class  of  men  he  sees  fit, 
and  this  right  which  one  man  may  exercise  singly 
any  number  of  men  may  exercise  jointly,  and  make 
simultaneous  declaration  of  their  choice. 

The  court  further  says  :  ‘  ‘  This  is  the  age  of  asso¬ 
ciations  and  unions  in  all  departments  of  labor  and 
business,  for  purposes  of  mutual  benefit  and  protec¬ 
tion.  Confined  to  their  proper  limits,  they  are  not 
only  lawful,  but  laudable.  Carried  beyond  these 
limits  they  are  liable  to  become  dangerous  agencies 
of  wrong  and  oppression.  Beyond  what  limits  these 
combinations  can  go  without  interfering  with  the 
legal  rights  of  others  is  a  problem  which  the  courts 
will  doubtless  be  frequently  called  to  pass  upon.  ’  ’ 

The  Legislature  of  Michigan  also  acted  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  this  view  by  adding  the  following  ex¬ 
ceptive  clause  to  a  law  intended  to  protect  railroad 
and  other  corporations  and  individuals  from  con¬ 
spiracy,  malice,  etc.  : 

“  Section  9276.  This  act  shall  not  be  construed 
to  apply  to  cases  of  persons  voluntarily  quitting  the 
employment  of  any  railroad  company  or  such  other 
corporation,  firm,  or  individual,  whether  by  concert 
of  action  or  otherwise.”  (See  Howell’s  Annotated 
Statutes  of  1882,  Michigan.) 

The  trend  of  public  sentiment  is  also  shown  by 
the  passage  last  year  by  the  Ohio  Legislature  of  the 
“  Llewellyn  Law,”  which  is  otherwise  entitled  “An 
act  to  protect  employees  and  guarantee  their  right  to 
belong  to  labor  organizations,”  and  makes  violation 
thereof  punishable  by  fine  or  imprisonment,  or  both. 

Whatever  may  be  practicable  in  the  way  of  main¬ 
taining  the  reciprocal  relations  of  labor  and  capital 
generally,  in  my  view  two  things  are  indispensable 
to  the  prevention  of  strikes  on  railways.  One  is  the 
full  recognition  of  railway  labor  societies  as  corpora- 


i6 


tions.  The  other  is  the  settlement  of  disputes  be¬ 
tween  railway  employer  and  railway  employees  by 
means  of  compulsory  arbitration  between  the  men 
represented  by  their  labor  corporation  as  one  party 
and  the  stockholders  of  the  company  represented  by 
the  railway  corporation  as  the  other  party.  We 
then  obtain  that  equality  of  power  and  force  which 
compels  the  essential  requisites  of  friendly  relation, 
respect,  consideration,  and  forbearance. 

Disputes  between  employers  and  employees  can  be 
satisfactorily  adjusted  only  upon  the  basis  of  fair 
concession  and  mutual  advantage.  The  strict  rules 
of  law  are  wholly  inapplicable  to  such  controversies, 
and  so  far  the  only  plan  which  appears  to  offer  a 
solution  of  the  difficulty  is  arbitration  It  is  not 
conceded  to  be  practicable  to  compel  the  parties 
engaged  in  productive  enterprises  to  accept  arbitra¬ 
tion,  but  that  objection  loses  all  its  force  when  it  is 
proposed  to  limit  it  to  those  engaged  in  railway 
transportation.  The  power  of  Congress  to  regulate 
commerce,  including  its  transportation  and  the  in¬ 
strumentalities  employed  therein,  is  too  well  settled 
to  need  argument  or  citation  of  authority. 

The  propriety  of  this  form  of  procedure  is  clearly 
recognized  in  the  federal  statutes.  A  law  of  Congress 
approved  October  i,  1888,  is  entitled  as  follows  : 

‘  ‘  An  act  to  create  boards  of  arbitration  or  commis¬ 
sions  for  settling  controversies  and  differences  be¬ 
tween  railroad  corporations  or  other  common  car¬ 
riers  engaged  in  interstate  and  territorial  transporta¬ 
tion  of  property  or  passengers  and  their  employees. 
(Sup.  to  Rev.  Stat.  p.  622.).  And  its  declared  pur¬ 
pose  is  to  settle  “differences  or  controversies’’  which 
“may  hinder,  impede,  obstruct,  interrupt  or  affect 
such  transportation  of  property  or  passengers.’’ 
It  provides,  if  the  parties  agree  thereto,  for  the 
appointment  of  one  arbitrator  by  each  of  the  two 
parties,  and  for  the  selection  of  a  third  by  the  two 
thus  chosen.  The  matters  in  dispute  are  to  be  sub- 


17 


mitted  to  the  arbitrators  at  the  nearest  practicable 
place  to  that  at  which  the  difficulty  originated,  and 
the  parties  are  to  be  fully  heard  and  have  the  right 
to  be  represented  by  counsel.  It  is  further  provided 
that  the  fees  and  compensation  of  arbitrators  (ten 
dollars  a  day)  and  those  of  clerks,  stenographers, 
marshals  and  witnesses,  are  to  be  examined  and 
certified  by  the  United  States  District  Judge  and 
paid  by  and  through  the  Treasury  Department ; 
but  the  maximum  cost  of  any  investigation  shall 
not  exceed  $5,000.  Additional  arbitration  is  pro¬ 
vided  for  in  the  law  by  the  appointment  of  two  com¬ 
missioners  by  the  President,  who  together  with  the 
Commissioner  of  Labor  shall  constitute  a  temporary 
commission  for  the  adjustment  of  any  such  diffi¬ 
culty,  and  the  President  may  upon  his  own  motion, 
or  upon  the  application  of  one  of  the  parties,  or 
upon  the  application  of  the  Executive  of  the  State, 
tender  the  services  of  such  a  commission. 

Congress  also  recognized  the  right  of  labor  to 
organize  and  become  incorporated  for  protection  and 
advancement  by  enacting  the  statue  of  June  29,  1886, 
entitled  ‘‘An  act  to  authorize  the  incorporation  of 
National  Trades  Unions,”  and  some  of  the  purposes 
for  which  such  a  union  is  authorized  are  the  regula¬ 
tion  of  wages  and  the  hours  and  conditions  of  labor, 
and  the  protection  of  individual  rights  in  the  prose¬ 
cution  of  their  trade  or  trades.  Fifteen  States  also 
have  provided  for  the  settlement  of  labor  disputes  by 
arbitration,  while  ten  States  recognize  by  law  labor 
organizations.  * 

It  is  clearly  demonstrated,  therefore,  that  labor 
has  now  a  legal  right  to  organize  and  combine  and 
be  represented  through  a  common  head,  and  that 
railway  companies  and  their  employees  already  have 
an  arbitration  procedure  provided  for  them  in  case 
they  see  fit  to  embrace  it.  But  additional  legisla¬ 
tion,  which  will  give  labor  corporations  full  power 
to  act  for  the  men  and  which  will  make  arbitration 


*  See  tables  A  and  B  following  this  article. 


8 


of  disputes  arising  in  railway  work  a  compulsory 
process  in  case  such  disputes  cannot  be  settled  by 
negotiation,  is  necessary. 

To  make  arbitration  effective  and  just,  the  arbi¬ 
trators  should  be  drawn  from  the  vicinage  and  with 
particular  reference  to  the  particular  case.  A  man 
who  knows  nothing  about  the  work  involved  is  not 
qualified  to  decide  the  question.  When  the  matter 
in  controversy  involves  how  many  hours  a  man 
should  work,  what  pay  he  should  receive,  or  any  of 
the  questions  which  cause  dispute  between  the  em¬ 
ployer  and  the  employee,  those  questions  should  be 
considered  by  men  familiar  with  the  particular  em¬ 
ployment  under  consideration  as  well  as  with  the 
needs  and  situation  of  the  employer.  Such  well  in¬ 
formed  persons  are  to  be  found  in  every  locality,  and 
when  questions  arise  between  employer  and  employees 
they  are  best  qualified  to  decide  what  concessions 
are  fair  and  what  will  redound  to  the  mutual  ad¬ 
vantage  of  the  parties.  As  a  rule  men  who  hold 
office  for  life  or  a  defined  term  are  unfit  for  such 
positions.  A  person  to  be  a  good  arbitrator  must 
be  directly  responsible  in  every  case.  Men  who 
hold  definite  terms  of  office  are  placed  in  a  position 
where  they  regard  mankind  as  divided  into  classes, 
and  they  have,  too  often,  but  the  instincts  and  the 
sympathies  of  their  “  class.”  The  ultra-conservative 
man,  the  man  whose  whole  interest  lies  in  maintaining 
the  present  order  of  things,  is  prone  to  look  through 
the  closed  window  of  his  richly  furnished  apartment, 
and  in  this  refracted  light  and  perverted  view  to 
imagine  that  he  sees  in  the  workman  passing  by 
with  blouse  and  dinner  pail  a  member  of  ‘  ‘  the  dan¬ 
gerous  classes.”  Arbitrators,  on  the  other  hand, 
should  be  men  who  know  no  class,  but  who  represent 
the  great  sovereign  whole.  The  utmost  publicity 
should  be  given  to  such  awards,  and  to  attain  this 
end  the  law  regulating  arbitration  might  contain 
provision  for  a  report  by  all  boards  of  arbitration  of 


19 


the  awards  made  by  them  to  the  executive  head  of 
the  government  and  for  the  formal  and  official  pro¬ 
mulgation  by  him  of  all  awards  so  made. 

Moreover,  questions  arising  between  employer  and 
employee  demand  the  most  prompt  method  of  set¬ 
tlement  ;  and  pending  final  settlement  the  relations 
existing  at  the  time  the  disputes  arose  should  be  main¬ 
tained  and  the  parties  should  bear  their  grievances 
patiently  during  that  period  and  rely  upon  just  and 
proper  revision  and  adjustment  by  the  board  of 
arbitration  Another  requisite  is  that  the  arbitra¬ 
tors  should  be  permitted  to  provide  for  a  continu¬ 
ance  of  the  employment  for  a  reasonable  time  after 
the  award  is  made,  and  the  parties  should  agree 
beforehand  to  be  bound  thereby.  The  writer,  while 
a  member  of  the  Massachusetts  Legislature,  in  1886, 
introduced  an  arbitration  bill  which  contained  all 
these  features. 

As  above  stated,  the  objection  is  often  urged  that 
boards  of  arbitration  generally  are  not  clothed  with 
power  to  enforce  their  awards.  True,  in  one  sense 
they  have  no  such  power,— that  is  to  say,  not  the  vis¬ 
ible,  material  power  of  a  writ  of  execution  backed  by 
sheriff  or  marshal  ;  but  even  then  the  award  would 
impress  the  moral  sense  of  the  community  and 
would  in  most  cases  be  self-executory.  And  this  is 
a  distinguishing  mark  of  the  glory  of  our  civiliza¬ 
tion  and  our  form  of  government. 

President  Cleveland,  in  calling  the  attention  of 
Congress  to  the  subject  of  labor  disputes,  recom¬ 
mended  legislation  which  resulted  in  the  “Arbitra¬ 
tion  Law  ”  above  mentioned.  In  his  special  message 
of  April  22,  1886,  he  said: 

‘  ‘  If  such  a  Commission  (of  arbitration)  were  fairly 
organized,  the  risk  of  a  loss  of  popular  support  and 
sympathy  resulting  from  a  refusal  to  submit  to  so 
peaceful  an  instrumentality  would  constrain  both 
parties  to  such  disputes  to  invoke  its  interference 
and  abide  by  its  decision. 

>j<  >5c  :jc 


20 


‘  ‘  If  the  usefulness  of  such  a  Commission  is  doubted 
because  it  might  lack  power  to  enforce  its  decisions, 
much  encouragement  is  derived  from  the  conceded 
good  that  has  been  accomplished  by  the  railroad 
commissions  which  have  been  organized  in  many  of 
the  States,  which,  having  little  more  than  advisory 
power,  have  exerted  a  most  salutary  influence  in 
the  settlement  of  disputes  between  conflicting  in¬ 
terests.” 

But  so  far  as  the  .settlement  of  disputes  in  which 
the  public  has  direct  interest  is  concerned,  like  those 
arising  in  the  course  of  railway  employment,  Con¬ 
gress  unquestionably  has  power  to  compel  arbitra¬ 
tion.  The  tendency  of  Congress  to  recognize  labor 
associations  has  already  been  shown.  It  is  but  a 
step  further  to  provide  that  organizations  of  railway 
employees  shall,  when  disputes  arise  with  railway 
managers,  file  approved  bonds  with  designated  of¬ 
ficials  for  and  in  behalf  of  the  men,  that  they  will 
abide  by  the  decision  of  the  board  of  arbitration; 
that  the  railway  corporations  shall  likewise  file  sim¬ 
ilar  bonds;  and  that  awards  made  under  such  condi¬ 
tions  shall  be  enforcible  in  the  courts.  The  further 
objection  urged  against  arbitration,  that  the  indi¬ 
vidual  employee  is  pecuniarily  irresponsible,  would 
by  this  method  be  removed.  L,et  the  men  join  the 
organization  and  let  the  organization  treat  with  the 
corporation. 

Most  men  who  go  to  law  know  more  of  their 
cases  than  the  lawyers  they  employ,  but  how  few 
will  enter  into  a  law  suit  without  an  attorney  to 
present  the  cause  !  It  is  quite  as  necessary  to  the 
workingman  to  have  an  advocate.  He  is  so  handi¬ 
capped  by  his  subordinate  position  that  he  can 
neither  lucidly  nor  concisely  state  his  case,  what  he 
deems  his  wrongs  to  be,  nor  the  redress  he  asks. 
The  environment  of  the  railway  official  is  enough 
to  abash  him.  It  puts  him  ill  at  ease  and  discon¬ 
certs  him.  In  the  palmy  days  of  the  Reading  road 
I  knew  a  man,  the  head  of  a  large  business,  coming 


21 


from  a  long  distance  on  important  business,  to  sit 
three  days  in  the  ante-room  of  the  palatial  office  of 
the  president  of  the  road  before  he  had  even  an 
opportunity  for  a  five-minute  interview.  Would 
not  an  employee  be  thoroughly  demoralized  under 
such  conditions?  Even  men  familiar  with  official 
life  are  often  embarassed  in  the  presence  of  authority 
or  power,  no  matter  how  brave  both  morally  and 
physically  they  may  be.  It  is  largely  a  matter  of 
habit.  The  railroad  employee  is  brought  too  little 
in  contact  with  his  superior  officers  He  must  have 
an  advocate  who  has  the  power  and  influence  of 
men  and  money  behind  him,  such  men,  as  I  may 
say,  as  are  the  present  leaders  of  existing  rail¬ 
way  labor  organizations. 

When  a  man’s  income  has  put  him  beyond  the 
fear  of  want,  any  further  increase  adds  less  to  his 
happiness  than  he  thought  it  would  before  he  got 
it  ;  and  the  pleasure  derived  from  the  increase  is 
chiefly  the  pleasure  of  conscious  power.  How  much 
more  desirable  the  position  of  the  leader  of  a  great 
industrial  army,  who  has  earned  the  confidence  and 
affection  of  those  around  him  !  He  has  more  of 
those  things  for  which  wealth  is  really  to  be  desired 
than  if  he  had  accumulated  a  large  fortune.  More 
honorable,  more  earnestly  to  be  striven  for,  is  his 
position  than  that  of  the  admiral  of  a  fleet  or  the 
general  of  an  army,  whose  business  is  destruction, 
or  of  the  leader  or  head  of  a  great  syndicate  or 
trust. 

All  tendencies,  as  before  stated,  are  toward  col¬ 
lective  ownership  and  collective  action,  through  the 
result  of  free  choice  by  each  individual  of  that  line 
of  conduct  which,  after  careful  deliberation,  seems 
best  suited  for  attaining  his  ends,  whether  they  are 
selfish  or  unselfish.  I  know  it  may  be  urged  that 
by  this  organization  and  combination  of  labor  in¬ 
dividualism  is  destroyed.  But  there  are  only  two 
forces  in  this  bargain  between  employer  and  em- 


22 


ployee.  Justice  must  be  the  desire  on  both  sides  ; 
or  one  side  must  be  as  powerful  as  the  other.  Unless 
selfish  interests  are  put  aside,  power  must  be  matched 
against  power.  If  the  employees  act  individually, 
they  divide  their  forces  against  themselves  and  for¬ 
feit  all  hope  of  a  successful  issue  of  the  contest. 

When  laborers  are  scarce  and  employers  are  seek  - 
ing  men  and  not  men  employment,  this  does  not 
apply.  But  now  every  day  the  ability  of  the  in¬ 
dividual  to  choose  his  employer  in  any  particular 
calling  is  vanishing.  If  he  would  pursue  his  handi¬ 
craft  he  must  accept  employment  from  a  yearly 
lessening  number  of  individuals  or  corporations. 
The  only  way  in  which  he  may  protect  himself  is 
through  combined  action  with  his  fellow-craftsmen. 

When  disputes  arise  between  employer  and  em¬ 
ployee  each  side  feels  the  force  of  public  opinion  and 
criticism  and  strives  to  put  itself  right  with  the  pub¬ 
lic  and  convince  it  that  the  quarrel  is  the  fault  of 
the  other  party.  In  this  effort  how  handicapped  in 
every  way  is  the  railway  employee  !  A  strike  in¬ 
conveniences  and  interferes  with  the  public.  A  man 
who  cannot  have  himself  or  his  goods  transported  is 
not  likely  to  look  into  the  merits  of  the  matter ;  he 
is  ready  to  denounce  the  striker.  The  public  is  too 
often  prejudiced  in  its  view  of  a  strike,  because  it 
does  not  know  the  circumstances  out  of  which  the 
differences  grew.  The  public  gets  its  information 
from  the  newspaper,  whose  editor  and  publisher  may 
be  influenced  by  the  large  advertising  patronage  of 
the  corporation,  etc.,  and  give  little  heed  to  any 
other  view  of  the  case  than  that  which  the  corpora¬ 
tion  desires  them  to  take. 

Without  venturing  upon  a  statement  in  relation 
to  the  railway  strikes  which  have  occurred  in  our 
country,  it  is  sufficient  to  give  the  result  of  the  Scot¬ 
tish  railway  strike  of  1890,  when  there  was  a  com¬ 
plete  paralysis  of  all  industry.  Over  100,000  persons 
other  than  strikers  were  thrown  out  of  employment 


23 


as  a  consequence  of  the  railway  strike.  Steel  works, 
engineering  works,  ship-building  works,  and  cotton 
mills  shut  down  for  want  of  coal  and  material.  The 
scarcity  of  coal  affected  most  seriously  and  bore  most 
heavily  upon  the  poorer  people.  The  public  loss  and 
inconvenience  was  incalculable  ;  the  retail  price  of 
coal  doubled.  Trade  left  Scottish  ports,  and  mer¬ 
chants  bought  their  goods  elsewhere.  Such  a  ca¬ 
lamity  might  overtake  our  own  country.  Can  the 
efforts  of  the  legislator  be  better  directed  than  towards 
a  solution  of  this  question,  towards  devising  some 
method  of  treating,  in  a  just,  amicable,  and  satis¬ 
factory  manner,  these  disputes  so  liable  at  any  time 
to  arise  ?  It  is  for  the  common  good,  ‘  ‘  the  general 
welfare,”  of  all  interests,  that  arbitration  in  matters 
of  railway  employment  may  be  provided.  May  we 
not  look  forward  to  the  time  when  the  almost  waste 
product  of  the  higher  abilities  that  are  latent  among 
railroad  employees  will  be  availed  of  in  the  directories 
of  the  corporations  ? 

The  running  and  switching  of  railway  trains  is  a 
semi-public  as  well  as  a  most  hazardous  employ, 
ment.  Such  trains  carry  our  persons  and  our  pro¬ 
perty  ;  they  are  the  actual  agencies  by  which  car¬ 
riers  exercise  their  delegated  public  functions,  and 
any  occurrences  which  derange  or  tend  to  derange 
the  proper  and  equal  service  which  the  people  are 
entitled  to  demand  become  matters  of  public  con¬ 
cern.  Stories  of  the  fidelity,  the  heroism  and  the 
sacrifices  of  railway  train  employees  constitute 
thrilling  chronicles  of  daily  occurrence.  Those 
heroic  attributes  are  even  shown  in  the  dry  field  of 
comparative  statistics.  During  the  year  ending 
with  June,  .1891,  531,183,998  passengers  were  car¬ 
ried  by  the  railroads  in  the  United  States,  on  which 
784,285  persons  were  employed  in  their  operation. 
In  the  same  year  293  passengers  were  killed,  and 
2,972  passengers  injured,  or  one  passenger  was 
killed  for  every  1,811,642  carried,  and  one  passen- 


24 


ger  injured  for  every  178,604  carried  ;  while  for  the 
same  period  2660  employees  were  killed  and  26,140 
were  injured  ;  or  one  was  killed  for  every  296  em¬ 
ployed,  and  one  injured  for  every  30  employed  ! 

Congress  has  recently  passed  a  humane  law  in  the 
interest  of  the  railway  employee,  providing  for  the 
adoption  of  a  uniform  system  of  coupling  cars,  and 
for  other  safety  appliances;  and  that  law  was’  in¬ 
tended  to  protect  employees  as  far  as  possible  from 
injury  and  death.  Why  should  not  Congress,  by 
making  arbitration  compulsory,  now  provide  for  the 
protection  of  their  livelihood  as  well  ?  This  is  es¬ 
pecially  appropriate  and  feasible  when  the  fact  is 
considered  that  such  a  disposition  of  railway  labor 
disputes  is  eminently  fair,  is  practically  certain  to 
result  in  just  awards,  and  will  be  for  the  interest  of 
the  employer  as  well  as  of  the  employed. 

The  conductors,  the  engineers,  the  firemen,  yard¬ 
men,  brakemen,  and  switchmen  all  contribute,  not 
their  manual  labor  only,  but  their  brains,  their  j  udg- 
ment,  and,  as  statistics  show,  their  lives  too  often,  as 
against  the  mere  money  of  the  stockholders.  Are 
they  not,  then,  entitled  to  consideration  and  protec¬ 
tion  ?  The  law  affords  no  remedy ;  the  courts,  as 
at  present  constituted,  have  no  power  to  deal  with 
the  real  question.  Further  legislation  is  necessary. 
To  the  broad  principle  of  arbitration  we  must  look 
for  ultimate  relief  !  To  the  importance  of  the  ques¬ 
tions  involved  and  to  the  urgent  need  of  an  adequate 
remedy  we  can  no  longer  shut  our  eyes  with  safety. 

Edward  A.  Moseley. 


Recognition  by  Law  of  Labor 
Organizations. 

A  TABLE  SHOWING  WHAT  STATES  HAVE  BY  STAT¬ 
UTE  RECOGNIZED  AS  LAWFUL  THE  RIGHT  OF 
EMPLOYEES  TO  ASSOCIATE,  UNITE  OR 
COMBINE. 


STATES. 

i.  United  States. 

(Ch.  567,  Sec.  1,  1885-* 86.) 


2.  Colorado. 

(Acts  1889,  p.  92.) 


3.  Iowa. 

(Acts  1886,  Ch.  71.) 


4.  Louisiana. 
(Act  50,  1890.) 


FOR  WHAT  PURPOSES. 

Becoming  more  skillful  and 
efficient  workers,  the  promo¬ 
tion  of  intelligence,  the  eleva¬ 
tion  of  character,  the  regulation 
of  wages  and  the  hours  and  con¬ 
ditions  of  labor,  the  protection 
of  individual  rights  in  the 
prosecution  of  trades,  the  rais¬ 
ing  of  funds  for  the  benefit  of 
sick,  disabled  or  unemployed 
members,  or  the  families  of 
deceased  members,  or  for  any 
other  object  for  which  work¬ 
ing  people  may  lawfully  com¬ 
bine. 

To  advise  or  encourage  any 
person  or  persons  to  enter  into 
any  combination  in  relation  to 
entering  into  or  remaining  in 
the  employment  of  any  person 
or  corporation,  or  in  relation 
to  the  amount  of  wages  to  be 
paid  for  labor,  or  for  regulating 
the  hours  of  labor,  or  for  pro¬ 
curing  of  fair  and  just  treat¬ 
ment  for  employees,  or  for  aid¬ 
ing  and  protecting  their  wel¬ 
fare  and  interests  in  any  other 
manner. 

For  the  regulation,  by  lawful 
means  of  prices  of  labor,  of 
hours’  work,  and  other  matters 
pertaining  to  industrial  pur¬ 
suits. 

Allows  Trades  Unions  and 
Knights  of  Labor  Assemblies 
or  lodges,  or  similar  institu¬ 
tions,  to  be  incorporated. 


26 


STATES. 


FOR  WHAT  PURPOSES. 


(5.  Massachusetts. 
(Acts  1888,  Ch.  134.) 


6.  Michigan. 

(Acts  1885,  No.  145.) 


7.  New  Jersey. 

(Acts  1889,  Ch’s  73  and  187.) 


8.  New  York. 

(Acts  1887,  Ch.  63.) 

9.  North  Carolina. 

(Acts  1887,  Ch.  145.) 

10.  North  Dakota. 

(Acts  1890,  Ch.  46.) 

11.  Ohio. 

(Act  1893,  ‘  ‘Llewellyn  Law.  ”) 

12.  Wyoming. 

(Con.,  Art.  16,  Sec.  10.) 

(R.  S.  1887,  T.  7,  Sec.  589 
and  590.) 


Permits  incorporations  of 
labor  organizations  for  the 
purpose  of  improving  in  any 
lawful  manner  the  condition 
of  any  employees  in  trades 
and  employments,  as  to  em¬ 
ployment,  education,  temper¬ 
ance,  morality,  or  social  inter¬ 
course,  and  by  paying  benefits 
to  members  when  sick. 

For  the  improvement  of  so. 
cial  and  material  interests,  the 
regulation  of  wages,  the  laws 
and  conditions  of  employment, 
the  protection  of  rights  in  the 
prosecution  of  trades  and  asso¬ 
ciations,  the  collection  and  pay¬ 
ment  of  funds  for  the  benefit  of 
sick,  disabled,  and  unemployed 
members,  the  securing  of  bene¬ 
fits  to  families  of  deceased  mem¬ 
bers,  and  for  such  other  objects 
of  material  benefit  and  protec¬ 
tion. 

For  protecting  trade-marks 
of  trade  unions,  and  for  incor¬ 
poration  of  building  associa¬ 
tions  of  organized  labor. 

For  purposes  of  arbitrating 
disputes  with  employers. 

For  the  protection  of  labor¬ 
ers  employed  by  stevedores. 

Allowed  to  be  incorporated 
for  the  lawful  purposes  for 
which  they  were  organized. 

To  protect  employees  and 
guarantee  their  right  to  belong 
to  labor  organizations. 

For  purposes  of  arbitration  ; 
allow  assemblies  of  Knights  of 
Labor  to  be  incorporated,  and 
permits  organizations  of  mutual 
and  co-operative  associations. 


ARBITRATION  OF  LABOR  DISPUTES. 


03  f-M 

q  s 

w  4 
4  Q 
W  5? 
H  <1 

Q  « 

4  4 

<1 

Q 


»4 
<1 
> 

Q 

Q  ? 

4  4 

S3  « 


5Q 


Q 

W 

#  03 

W  P$ 

P  O 

JH 

fUj 

Ft 


4 

4 

S 

13  g 

4  d 

w 

13 

be  £ 

4 

4  13 
^  03  ^d 

4 

> 

PQ 

’G 'm 

d 

d 

co  a 

43  cO 

e » 

Hi  -T3 

>  d 
O  O 


S  d 

S  £ 


bJO 

d 

4 

o 


*« 
o'H 
£  | 
ai 


d  43 

O  4 

a,^ 
d  3 
<u  _, 

> d 

4  <u 


03 

o 

"So 

*> 

o 

l— I 

a, 

o 

£ 


d 


d 

03 
13  ^ 

r2  0 

P*+J 

3  3 

13  03 

P 

d  u . 
43  © 
13  ■■ 


43  03  fl 

■*  « 


.  o 


d 

?  _ 

4  bj04  o  d 

13  d  o  m  0 
4  4  n  ^  13 


a  © 

o  a, 


13  43  u 

"rt  © 

S  £  <2 
n 

•r-  13  03 
03^  £d 
£ 


aS  as 

t-h  03 

d  cd 

4  jb 
.*§■ 
'S  2' 

5  g- 

13  6 

4  A  * 

H  y 


d  . 

k.  d 

b  43 

..  6 

°  o 

J* 

•So 

^  « 

03  « 


rH  ^  A  CO  <V 

B  «|  £  £  •“ 

«  u  S-^o  jf&S 

4r^Cdo-M03J_, 

.  dGS-rHj043o 

s|f"-8--l§ 

B^§i|^a§ 

^  g  C3  ^  ^ 

^■Sl  s 

gE  43* d  g  *  °-S 

•S  g.fc  £-4  03 

SS’sH* 


13 


3^  03d  0,JH  . 

•  C3  --—I  +j  Od  Ul  13 

twin'd  43,0  &, a  y  <+-,  g 

!§28°-§s!:i 

4  _.  ^  *rH  rtr  22  d  u 

i  ^  »H  d  n-S  03  ~Tj 

.5  fflV-  «  g  a.§5  s  * 

jU'tS'aj'ca  a)  3  -|2  o  r 
”  Cd  O  0343013d 
d.d  7j  .d  i3  i3  a  -m  c 

^4  dfed  ii  q  g.d  § 

§  £  SS.S  *  b  o 

d  Pi  CO  -M  03  ^  4 


43  d 
13  S 

^'S 


gS^-2 


g  S  e 


.5.3  S 


d 

cd 

03  13 

IlK 

S  03^  « 
5  U  .  43 


13  5 

3  & 

.3  a 

aS 


<S.  -  u 

sas 

2  S-2Z 

13  03  d 

>  O  03 

SfS'S 

d  5  bJO 


13 


$$ 


&-S  1*5,9  Is  g 

He  «?  ^ 


>  oS 

i3  5  o 
03  d 


.3  03 
>  <+^ 
o  ° 

K*  4-» 


a  g 
a;  G 

S*.s 


<u  d  43 
J-i  Jh  13  "~l  43 
o  43  £ 


d 

d  ^ 

d  Jd  03 


04 

d  d 


<3^o 


O  43 
13  4 

■rt  X  d  13  £ 

P-<  13  0,4  13 


-3 


CO  CO 

35 1 

•^  2 

’3  . 

d  O 
^  d 
43  4 


■ 

o 

Q 

' — ' 

ci 

VO 

U 

CS 

00* 

d, 

tC 

13* 

4 

U 

4 

O 

4 
.  co 

13 

to 

MO 

00 

VO*. 

o  00 

00 

oo  d 

d  M 

rO 

M 

.  co  d 

C/)  NH  rH 

CO  03 

3ti 


O 

4 

d 

nd  <> 


d 

O 


CO 


d  4» 
bd 


rO 

VO 

<N 

So 

d  oo 
4  co 

C3  M 
5S  03 

gts 


cd  « 

£  3-c 

5  g  S 

*P  bo-*-* 

r-i  cd  h 

3  P  — 

43  >P  P^ 

«  >>£ 

ts  2  S3 

1!b 

P  cd  -*-» 

,—  +-1  O 
td+j  o 
12  CJ  (U 

OftJft 

’  <+H  4^ 

3  o  o 

£  ft 

rn  a  cn  a 

33.2.2 
3.2 3  « 

0^2  S’S 

02  P-  ft 
Q  <u  i>  42 
1)  +j  co 


O  .4 

^  rO 

<8  c3 

2<ft 

bo  ° 

cd  +-> 


j2  ° 

fc  u 
>  0) 
O  ft 


o  o 
o  _, 


A-  'W 

o 
o  1> 

4->  13) 
1) 


cd  C 


<D  CD 

*3 

«  O 
cn 


-  O 


O  P-, 
ft  cd 
u  rb 

S3&2 

ft  'P  t/2  a 

2  «  83 

^+3  3  -g 

a  o 


ft  cu 


o  ft  3 

■+J  rl  U 

cd  ft  _ -i 

4-»  cn  to 
tn  _  cd 
1>  O  -ft 

.2  be  a 


<u  ft  a  ft 
43  3  cd  tJ 
4->  cd  (D 
cd  ja  cd 
boP 


V  o  O  ^ 

o  cd  *-■  3 

f  (D 


<u  2 


rH  C/1 

— J  X 

^  cd 


-  P*'* 

«  t» 

— 1  «  cd  ft 

<u  2  P  o. 

^  Sad 

P  P  lH  13)  ft! 

53  c/2  P  Pte 
4J  d  ft  r2  PK+3  3  ^ 
5  o  g  ^n  !)•“  g 
-  o '.«  .a*  £  °  'So  o* « 

•8o&3S£s-3S 

^  ■  T1  -So® 

3  cd  CP  rO  *-> 


I  ~  C/3 

s 

O  c/2  P 

o  »-  tj 

,1  £  3 
c  o  H 
3  ii  ii 
boo  5 

S  at« 


33;  t:  p  v- 

Id  c3  «.-g 

PC  Ph  cd  ,p 


O  <L>  cd  Jh 
’en  ?  P  4-> 

'3  3  ^  O 

<u  ft  — '  -*-> 

^  «3,s 

i.g’S  S 

H  £3<£ 

o  rt  2 


2  c3 
S  p 


a  p 


U  <u 


D  D 
Q  Ih 

•- 1  !-  i 

.12 


c/l 

Pi 

o 

B 

Pi 
B 

to  S 
£  Pi 
O  < 
B 

C/2 

W 

ft 

a 


23  2  £  A  o  2 

5  |6^C 

P.C  bio  bo .5  cd  o 

Cd  ^  C  dJ 

•SS-g-gB  if 

a  °S “«  o  „ 

•oi^gl-3 
S-S  8  2  3  gg 
aoB 


<u 

•°  § 
-  bo..  . 


cd 

3  3  a  2  <u 

fl  r-t  n  5  r[  Q 

■§333  bo  a  % 

•5*  *  a  ^  535 

X  cfl  *-,  213  Tj 

cd  -a  ,0  ra  *3;  -th  m 

C-t-H  rj  cd  >  H 
4J  +-1  SH  %  >  >  Cfi 
ft  5h  -*-1  TO  K  02 

d;  _4  ^  ^ 

p^5  ^_,  3  Ph  s  d> 

« $+*  g  2 

^'8  111 
*iS  a,  SPSS'S 
P  D  ►>  'ft  cd  ^ 
O  u  P  O  +j  cd 


o  -2  _ 
cfl  ft  d 
cd  a 
cd  ..  P^ 

<u  o 

U  +-1  t-H 

>  a  Ph 

cd  P^ft 

ft  cn  a 

S  ^-g 
a  o  a 

OJ  oJ 
<u 

d  o  w 

§“§  l< 
*Ji, 

a  u  d 

•*4  bO  P 

ca  ^  . 

*H  (1> 

P  P  ft  ft 

£!  ri  i)  a 
a  S3 


cd 

cd 

2  . 

1) 

•3& 

^  & 
5  d) 

Ph  n 
.2  § 
^  d> 
2  >> 
o 

T2 

3  § 

2  a 


dJ  4 

Jh 

a  oj 

H->  ^ 

cd  .ft 

a  ‘d 

^>5 
33 
*3  ^ 

02  OJ 

3,  bo 

C/5  £ 

o  z, 
u  a 
a  p 

BJ  « 
>■  ^ 
1)  4-1 

■a  p 

^a 

<§3 

i-i 

cd 


£0 


2  ^ 


P  bo 

2  -a 
8.5.ij 

ft  D  D 
O  oft 
ft  o  +3 

cd  s-i  t+. 
,— 1  1)  O 

U“§ 

ft  t^*a 

H-»  02  o 


rri  d2 

2  x 
p  o 


of  rj  2 

bog  3  d 

cd 

cn  1)  CU 
S  >id  P 
»h  p  5 

^  ii'oP 
12  a  a 
ft  02  d2  cd 

+J  1)  ^  5-1 

p  « 

rn  *5  5  a  ^,5  3 
o  t no  2  p  0  Ph 
.1-1  a;  5-i  Ij  ^  }-<  ^ 

23  0  § 

w  d2  ^  dJ  fl 
O  1— 1  •«-<  g  d 
12  Oh  cd  ft  nj  02 

M  H  ad* 

S8  O 

o< 


12 

o  bO- 

3  S 

CD 


•c  3 

boJ 


M 

B 

t/2 


M 

a 

-— ■ N 

tn 

CJ 

rO 

ft 

CftH 

< 

> 

ON 

GO 

00 

VO 

O' 

Q 

43  iT^ 

u 

ft 

^00 

0 

Sc£ 

•da 

cd3i^3 

.50  c? 

0  0 

Si 

a  . 
oto 

C/2 

tn  ; 

Si 

l«s*S 

>•  « 

OG 

cK 

10. 

11. 

(N 

O  H3 

<U 


O  V  ft  ."fa  fa 

O  0  83  ft 

Pi  •  ~  <U  .  cO  ft 


S  71 


'X' 


x 


<U 


O 

+->  Vh  „ 

x  .O  ji* 
u.2  6 

^  r&  X 

«  fa  ^ 
7  gJ  £ 

0^0 
r— «  Cd  i-H 

n  (U  ft 


l^SH's^S'S 

ij,D  <U  $3  03  - 

■a-o^aja^a 


'ft'-ft  i 

a  °  s 

CU  ft  ^ 
■y  o  O 


$  g  §  °Lt_  w  iu 


w -gf-g  g  -  o  _ 


<U 

<U 

tu  <ft  tu 

<Ii 
§*“ 


^  O  E>, 

Jh  +-■  }_ 

O  cn  ft 
«  ft  ft 

ft  -(->  tj 
P  ft  ft 

a.^  g 

O  ^  <4-1 


+J  CO  <]j  , 

<U  eft  S 

r3  ft  ' 

.  o  4-1 

'd  c  d 

<L>  t  U 

-4-J  -  J— < 

+j  4h  O 
•fa  O  ft 
6 

-ft  fa 


tu 

ft  -ft 

_  „  ^{H 

ft  ft  o 

M  (0  -P 


j3  Pft’cU  fa-’ 

^  *>  °  W)  j  3  « ‘S  « 

C  .5  2  ft  £.5  -  aJft 

O  -fa  <U  ft  ,  -°  ft  ft  fa 
x  fa  ft  ft  ^  o 

SNli-Slae 

ta.S  S  g|  g  o  fe-S 
Sa,s”S§^'a'S 

j-j  ft  ft  8  OlijHCO 
O  'P<+h  +3  2  C  °  °  £ 

§  6  °  S  o.s  2  8  2 

-  ft  ft  P+->  H  <U  «  fa 

w  (m;  S 

CU  Jh  tu  <U  CO  o  ft  ft 

a,'m  3-i  ct1^ 


o  cj  2  . 
P-ft  ft  ft 


CO^ 

-fa  ft  £r> 
ft  o  ft 
53 «  ft 

a»  5 

biC  ~  x 
ft  ft  u 

•^ft  8 

ijCs 

a ! 

8  3  * 

.fa  .  <u 
X  C  c-ft 

o  n-p 

llss 

fill 


o  ft 
<u 

X  £ 

lift 

x  cO 


a 
tu 

•ft  "u  ft 
cu 
<u 

ft  .i 


ft  fa 
°  §. 


ft 


o  •*-!  co  .-fa 
,ft  ft  9^  ft 
^  fa  Pru 

CO  03  9HCfl 

i - 1  <4H  ft  tM 

X  O  VH  O 

n,  x  O  co 

pftfajft 
^  gMg 

ft  'ft  ft 


<«  a 

°3 

ft  o 
.o  £ 

’rft  ^ 

12 
fa  <u 

iJS|. 

*s 


Vh 

cu 

■fa 

n ! 

ft  . 

0 

X 

fa  x 

3i 

'ft  8 

ft  <u 
<V 

S 

<u 

fa 

ft  biO 

o3 

ftb  0 

+-»  'TO 

ft  ft 

X  & 

a>  fa 

ft  ^ 
Pft 
c n  £ 

15  ft 

C/5 

c  S3 
*  o 

X  3-1 


,U  tu 
bft  <u 
3  £ 


n  c/5 

p 

^  o 

3  ’S 
£2 
X 

tu  <+-. 


o 

3 

o 

o 

X  . 

x  x 

Vh 

0  r2 

co 

J  s 


O 

Ch 

00 


9  ^ 

■a® 

Q  vo 


10 

00 

00 


is  •  o  -*-> 

j-  -ft  cu 

ISigi 


.  OC 
cO  00 


ft 

>  tbJO 

<Q 
x  M 
ft  x 

53  Pu 

pu,  -— 


.  o 
bjou 


